[SOLVED] How safe is changing the BCLK from 99.76 to 101 on laptop ?

[kopyakalpler]

Laptop model: Asus ROG Strix G614
CPU: i7-13650HX

I'm a little curious about overclocking and I'm just starting to learn. The default bus speed on my laptop is 99.76 and I want to lock it to a full number because I'm running it stably at 52 multipliers but unfortunately it can't go above a number like 51. When I set it to 100 in xtu, it works at the default 99.76 by the way, so will I have a problem if I set it to 101? Thanks in advance for your help.

If you need more information, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[Aeacus]

so will I have a problem if I set it to 101?

Most likely. Since at 101 BCLK, CPU wouldn't be stable.

Also, there is 0 gain in performance if you increase the BCLK.

99.76 BCLK with 51 ratio = 5087 Mhz or 5.087 Ghz
99.76 BCLK with 52 ratio = 5187 Mhz or 5.187 Ghz

100 BCLK with 51 ratio = 5100 Mhz or 5.1 Ghz
101 BCLK with 51 ratio = 5151 Mhz or 5.151 Ghz

100 BCLK with 52 ratio = 5200 Mhz or 5.2 Ghz
101 BCLK with 52 ratio = 5252 Mhz or 5.252 Ghz

When your CPU OC is stable with 99.76 BCLK at 52 ratio, for 100 BCLK at 52 ratio, you'd only gain 13 Mhz (5.187 Ghz vs 5.2 Ghz).
Even a gain of 200 Mhz would be peanuts and not worth the effort.

Back in the day, with older CPUs, CPU OC was worthwhile.
E.g i have i5-6600K with 3.5 GHz base and 3.9 Ghz boost. With CPU OC, i could get it 4.5 Ghz all core (increase of 600 Mhz over boost), or with delid, ~4.7 Ghz all core (800 Mhz over boost). And there have been some delidded i5-6600K CPUs, that can hold 5 Ghz all core.

Essentially from Intel 12th gen and onwards, most chips out there can only hold all core stable 100-300 Mhz over max boost. That gain is so little, that CPU OC with current, highly efficient chips, isn't worthwhile. There won't be any meaningful performance increase.
If the headroom would be bigger, like it is with my 6th gen CPU, where on minimum, i look towards 600 Mhz increase over boost clocks (or up to 1.1 Ghz over boost, if very lucky with delidded chip), then CPU OC makes sense.

All-in-all, CPU OC is dying niche and outside of record breaking, isn't worth the effort anymore. Better to run stock clocks and let CPU to decide when to turbo up. Less energy waste and less heat production this way also. Not to mention CPU lifespan, since when running stock clocks, CPU lifespan is easy 10+ years. Running all core OC 24/7 will reduce CPU lifespan considerably. E.g if i were to run 4.5 Ghz on my i5-6600K, i could cut the CPU lifespan in half. And when running CPU at high OC levels, the absolute maximum CPU is able to run at (e.g ~4.7 Ghz on my i5-6600K), the chip burns out in 1-2 years.

When I set it to 100 in xtu

XTU has it's limitations and it can be iffy when showing CPU stats.

Using XTU is like slapping a turbo to an engine and hoping to get the best results, without doing the chip tune and dyno, for optimal performance.

Intel XTU, MSI OC Genie, AsRock OC Tuner, Asus AI Overclocking, Gigabyte EasyTune etc, are all lazy man's OC options.

With essentially 1 click (hence why "lazy man's OC"), they put some level of OC on CPU (or whole system), while going way too high with voltages, among other things. Moreover, while it may give a bit better performance, those "profiles" won't tell what changes they do within BIOS. This can result in all kinds of stability issues. Even hardware failure.

All-in-all, if one wants to OC their CPU, better do it manually from BIOS. Or not do anything at all. This "convenient" 1 button/click OC is bad for hardware. Always has been.

Overclocking from BIOS, on the other hand, offers the most complete access to all available system performance settings. If you’re interested in manually fine-tuning your system settings and managing every aspect of your overclock, you should do it through the BIOS.

Source: Intel - https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/gaming/resources/bios-overclocking.html

Give it a read, it's a good read when starting to learn about CPU OC.

rog strix g614
i7 13650hx

Since you have a laptop, do note that you will hit thermal ceiling, fast.

Now, if you would have desktop, where you can go big on CPU cooler, thus increasing thermal ceiling, CPU OC would make a more sense.

 

[Lutfij]

If I were you, I'd leave the BCLK value as is since it deals with the rest of your platform's I/O. As it stands the 13th Gen Intel platform for both desktop and laptop have met an early demise due to a manufacturing defect, I wouldn't introduce another reason for instability.

Instead I'd undervolt the processor and GPU, change the thermal pads and paste for something higher in quality and then call it a day.

 

[kopyakalpler]

Büyük ihtimalle. 101 BCLK'den beri CPU kararlı olmayacaktı.

Ayrıca BCLK'yı arttırırsanız performansta 0 kazanç olur.

51 oranıyla 99,76 BCLK = 5087 Mhz veya 5,087 Ghz
52 oranlı 99,76 BCLK = 5187 Mhz veya 5,187 Ghz

51 oranlı 100 BCLK = 5100 Mhz veya 5,1 Ghz
51 oranlı 101 BCLK = 5151 Mhz veya 5,151 Ghz

52 oranlı 100 BCLK = 5200 Mhz veya 5,2 Ghz
52 oranlı 101 BCLK = 5252 Mhz veya 5,252 Ghz

CPU OC'niz 52 oranında 99,76 BCLK ile, 52 oranında 100 BCLK için kararlı olduğunda yalnızca 13 Mhz kazanırsınız (5,187 Ghz'ye karşı 5,2 Ghz).
200 Mhz'lik bir kazanç bile fıstık olur ve çabaya değmez.

Eskiden eski CPU'larla CPU OC değerliydi.
Örneğin 3,5 GHz tabanlı ve 3,9 Ghz destekli i5-6600K'ye sahibim. CPU OC ile tüm çekirdeği 4,5 Ghz (arttırma üzerinden 600 Mhz artış) veya delid ile tüm çekirdeği ~4,7 Ghz (arttırma üzerinden 800 Mhz) alabilirim. Ve 5 Ghz tüm çekirdeği tutabilen bazı delidded i5-6600K CPU'lar var.

Temel olarak Intel 12. nesil ve sonrasında, çoğu çip tüm çekirdeği maksimum artış üzerinden yalnızca 100-300 Mhz sabit tutabilir. Bu kazanç o kadar az ki, mevcut, yüksek verimli çiplere sahip CPU OC'nin pek bir değeri yok. Anlamlı bir performans artışı olmayacak.
Eğer tavan boşluğu, 6. nesil CPU'mda olduğu gibi daha büyük olsaydı, minimumda, güçlendirme saatlerine göre 600 Mhz'lik bir artışa (veya delikli çip konusunda çok şanslıysam 1,1 Ghz'e kadar artırmaya) bakarım, o zaman CPU OC mantıklı olur.

Sonuç olarak, CPU OC ölmekte olan bir niş ve rekor kırmanın dışında, artık çabaya değmez. Stok saatleri çalıştırmak ve CPU'nun ne zaman turbo yapılacağına karar vermesine izin vermek daha iyidir. Bu şekilde daha az enerji israfı ve daha az ısı üretimi de sağlanır. CPU ömründen bahsetmiyorum bile, stok saatleri çalıştırırken CPU ömrü 10+ yıl kolaydır. Tüm çekirdek OC'yi 7/24 çalıştırmak CPU ömrünü önemli ölçüde azaltacaktır. Örneğin, i5-6600K'mda 4,5 Ghz çalıştıracak olsaydım, CPU ömrünü yarıya indirebilirdim. Ve CPU'yu yüksek OC seviyelerinde çalıştırırken, mutlak maksimum CPU (örneğin i5-6600K'mde ~ 4.7 Ghz) çalışabiliyor, çip 1-2 yıl içinde yanıyor.


XTU'nun sınırlamaları vardır ve CPU istatistiklerini gösterirken iffy olabilir.

XTU kullanmak, bir motora turbo tokatlamak ve optimum performans için çip ayarını ve dyno'yu yapmadan en iyi sonuçları almayı ummak gibidir.

Intel XTU, MSI OC Genie, AsRock OC Tuner, Asus AI Overclock, Gigabyte EasyTune vb., hepsi tembel adamın OC seçenekleridir.

Temel olarak 1 tıklamayla (bu nedenle neden "tembel adamın OC'si"), diğer şeylerin yanı sıra voltajlarla çok yükseğe çıkarken CPU'ya (veya tüm sisteme) bir miktar OC koyarlar. Dahası, biraz daha iyi bir performans sunsa da, bu "profiller" BIOS içinde ne gibi değişiklikler yaptıklarını söylemeyecektir. Bu her türlü istikrar sorununa neden olabilir. Donanım arızası bile.

Sonuç olarak, eğer kişi CPU'sunu OC yapmak istiyorsa, bunu BIOS'tan manuel olarak yapsa iyi olur. Ya da hiç bir şey yapma. Bu "uygun" 1 düğme / tıklama OC donanım için kötüdür. Her zaman öyleydi.

Kaynak: Intel - https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/gaming/resources/bios-overclocking.html

Bir okuma yapın, CPU OC hakkında bilgi edinmeye başlarken iyi bir okumadır.


Dizüstü bilgisayarınız olduğundan termal tavana hızlı bir şekilde çarpacağınızı unutmayın.

Şimdi, CPU soğutucusunda büyük bir adım atabileceğiniz ve böylece termal tavanı artırabileceğiniz masaüstünüz olsaydı, CPU OC daha anlamlı olurdu.

Thank you for this great information.

To briefly explain... In Cinebench R23 multi-core, I don't have any cores exceeding 81°C, and at a stable 5.11GHz. I'm extremely happy. I only saw 84°C once in the Aida 64 test, but my core clock never drops. In the OCCT AVX2 test, it runs at 5.02GHz for the first minute and 15 seconds, and when my temperature reaches 95°C, it drops to between 4.80 and 4.90°C and stays there indefinitely.

I would have loved for it to stay at 5GHz constantly, but I couldn't go any further in any of the settings. I experienced several reboots beyond that, especially when the charger wasn't plugged in. So, all I could do was lower the voltage and keep the core multiplier stable at these maximum settings. HT and ECORE are off, by the way. I'm really having a good time with these settings. The jump from a maximum of 4.20GHz to 5.10GHz felt good. I also have a cache offset setting of -0.060, which I didn't take a picture of. Thanks for the help, I'm curious to hear what you think.



I posted the wrong profile photo, sorry. Core offset -220 healthy employee.

imgur.com/a/gTkWHNZ


By the way, the weather in the city I live in is 34 degrees. I don't know how many degrees it is inside the house. Also, I set the fans to 100% when it is over 70 degrees. There are three fans, the CPU and system fans are running at max (CPU 6800rpm max, system fan 7600 rpm but a slightly smaller fan). After 70 degrees. But my GPU fan is spinning at 3200rpm.

It's 2:04 pm here.

 

[kopyakalpler]

If I were you, I'd leave the BCLK value as is since it deals with the rest of your platform's I/O. As it stands the 13th Gen Intel platform for both desktop and laptop have met an early demise due to a manufacturing defect, I wouldn't introduce another reason for instability.

Instead I'd undervolt the processor and GPU, change the thermal pads and paste for something higher in quality and then call it a day.

Yes, I think so too, but I'm curious to know if a 1 MHz increase would actually have negative consequences. I didn't want more. Thanks for your help.

 

[kopyakalpler]

Friends, English is not my language. I apologize if there are any errors in the translation. I am ready to answer any questions you may have.

 

[Aeacus]

Friends, English is not my language.

Not mine either. Yet, at times, i know English better than my native language.

I would have loved for it to stay at 5GHz constantly

I wonder, what is the reason behind all core OC, where you want CPU frequency be that high at all times? Other than your own desire? 🤔

Since keeping CPU frequency so high at all times, is like you having your car engine RPMs at 8000 at all times. Regardless if you are driving in a city, on the highway or when car is parking and engine is running. Without ever letting the engine to lower the RPMs. Do you do that for your car as well? If not, then why not?

As i said before, running CPU at it's peak, will wear out your CPU - fast.
Not only that, but your CPU also constantly consumes ~157W at all times (i guess electricity for you is cheap), and since CPU is running that high frequencies, it also produces a lot of heat.

And all that.... Just because? 🤔
Or do you really want to see how long your CPU lasts before OC will kill the CPU?

The jump from a maximum of 4.20GHz to 5.10GHz felt good.

More like negligible increase from 4.9 Ghz to 5.1 Ghz. 200 Mhz extra.

4.9 Ghz is the max turbo for your CPU.
Specs: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-24m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz/specifications.html

but I'm curious to know if a 1 MHz increase would actually have negative consequences.

1 Mhz or 1 Ghz?

Since to make CPU run just 1 Mhz faster, You only need to increase BCLK ratio by 0.01. 99.77 gives you extra 1 Mhz.

The default bus speed on my laptop is 99.76 and and I want to lock it to a full number

Even when you try your level best, you may not get BCLK to 100 Mhz.

Clock signals are generated by physical components (oscillators) that have inherent manufacturing variations. These variations can cause the actual frequency to deviate slightly from the intended 100 MHz.
Also, MoBo and CPU manufacturers may choose a slightly lower BCLK frequency to improve stability or compatibility with certain components. Since lower frequency can reduce the risk of signal integrity issues and make the system more reliable.
Some systems employ spread spectrum clocking, which intentionally jitters the clock signal to reduce electromagnetic interference (EMI). This can also cause the BCLK to appear slightly different from 100 MHz.

A small deviation from 100 MHz, like 99.76 MHz, doesn't have an impact on performance. CPU may adjust multiplier and other settings to compensate for the slight frequency change.

 

[kopyakalpler]

❌[Quote from Aeacus post has been removed because you changed it to a non-English language]


It was impossible to see 4.9GHz on this processor. Maybe one or two cores, maybe. Right now I can run all cores at 5.1GHz, maybe even more, but the average effective clock speed is 5.1GHz, that's what I see. I meant I want it locked at 5GHz in AVX2. Of course, 1.6GHz at idle. I'm using a balanced power profile by the way.

cinebench 76, occt avx2 107, cpu z 68 watt

I wanted to try bclk 101 but it got 100.5 (xtu), so I took it back because it didn't really mean anything. I guess I was afraid to try 102.

 

[Aeacus]

It was impossible to see 4.9GHz on this processor.

4.9 Ghz P-core turbo means either single core or sometimes, multiple cores. Usually only one core reaches 4.9 Ghz, while the rest peak at lower (4.8 Ghz, 4.7 Ghz). But for sure, not all 6 cores at 4.9 Ghz. Unless manually OC'ing the chip.

I meant to say I'd like it to stay locked at 5GHz

Well, easiest is BCLK 100 Mhz and 50 multiplier.

But 100 Mhz BCLK may not be stable.
For 99.76 Mhz BCLK, multiplier needs to be 50.12 (4.999 Ghz) or 50.13 (5.001 Ghz).
But 98.04 Mhz BCLK with 51 multiplier = 5.000 Ghz.

 

[kopyakalpler]

4.9 Ghz P-core turbo means either single core or sometimes, multiple cores. Usually only one core reaches 4.9 Ghz, while the rest peak at lower (4.8 Ghz, 4.7 Ghz). But for sure, not all 6 cores at 4.9 Ghz. Unless manually OC'ing the chip.


Well, easiest is BCLK 100 Mhz and 50 multiplier.

But 100 Mhz BCLK may not be stable.
For 99.76 Mhz BCLK, multiplier needs to be 50.12 (4.999 Ghz) or 50.13 (5.001 Ghz).
But 98.04 Mhz BCLK with 51 multiplier = 5.000 Ghz.

I never, ever remember seeing more than 4.20, maybe a little bit more than that.Of course, at that time, I was only monitoring it from the task manager. I wasn't even aware of looking at individual cores, so I'm not sure if a few cores were actually reaching it.

I've known all this for two days. By the way, I'm done with BCLK. I think the current situation is quite satisfactory. I had a great time. My temperatures were very high, so I solved that and achieved a stable 5 GHz. I think the -220 undervolt was what really helped, and increasing the multiplier was a breeze. I'm curious to see what you think about the overall situation.

 

[Aeacus]

I never, ever remember seeing more than 4.20, maybe a little bit more than that.Of course, at that time, I was only monitoring it from the task manager.

Task manager shows overall core speeds, not individual core speed.

I wasn't even aware of looking at individual cores, so I'm not sure if a few cores were actually reaching it.

Best to use HWinfo64 for it.
Link: https://www.hwinfo.com/download/

Sensors mode shows ALL telemetry you can see for your PC. Summary mode shows system summary.

I'm curious to see what you think about the overall situation.

Well, if you're happy with what you achieved, godspeed for you.

As of my personal take, well, i already explained what i think about CPU OC for latest gen CPUs.
Overall, now, you have fancy round/whole numbers to look at. But with 0 actual performance benefit. Well, in CPU bench, you may get a bit bigger score than before but that's just synthetic load. Outside of that, you will not tell a difference in CPU compute speed.

 

[kopyakalpler]

Task manager shows overall core speeds, not individual core speed.


Best to use HWinfo64 for it.
Link: https://www.hwinfo.com/download/

Sensors mode shows ALL telemetry you can see for your PC. Summary mode shows system summary.


Well, if you're happy with what you achieved, godspeed for you.

As of my personal take, well, i already explained what i think about CPU OC for latest gen CPUs.
Overall, now, you have fancy round/whole numbers to look at. But with 0 actual performance benefit. Well, in CPU bench, you may get a bit bigger score than before but that's just synthetic load. Outside of that, you will not tell a difference in CPU compute speed.

My friend, you seem too knowledgeable to tell me there's no difference in the real world. I already know I won't reach the stress levels of synthetic loads, either in games or in my daily use. Even if it does a small task, it does so slightly faster. I could easily feel the difference even when opening my file explorer. That's a cold fact.

 

[_D_D]

By default Intel use about 0.5% down spread on BCLK. This means when you set 100 then it is modulated from 99.5 to 100 giving an average of what you see as 99.76. Using center spread or disabling it altogether should see 100 but Intel usually doesn't allow center spread or up spread. If not seeing a nice round 100MHz you could also try increasing BCLK to 100.25MHz with down spread but note the PLL granularity isn't very fine, might be a little off.

 

[kopyakalpler]

By default Intel use about 0.5% down spread on BCLK. This means when you set 100 then it is modulated from 99.5 to 100 giving an average of what you see as 99.76. Using center spread or disabling it altogether should see 100 but Intel usually doesn't allow center spread or up spread. If not seeing a nice round 100MHz you could also try increasing BCLK to 100.25MHz with down spread but note the PLL granularity isn't very fine, might be a little off.

Thanks for the reply. I'm getting a RAM error at 100.25. I think my RAM is too sensitive. DDR5